On 02/10/13 18:12, Adrien Nader wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Oct 02, 2013, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote: >> -0 I'm not convinced but I don't have any evidence that it's bad, just >> a personal feeling. > > All it does is add a commit that says "branch X was merged in branch Y". > There are two possible drawbacks: > - commit message should be checked to contain meaningful branch names > (you can end up with bad names if you use bad names in your local > branches and expect these names to never be seen by the public) > - one useless commit (some people actually don't like it) >
Well not really. By default it shows that message. I also find the default message useless. I use that commit as an opportunity to describe the feature as a whole. Look at my example: https://git.enlightenment.org/devs/tasn/git-work-flow-example.git/commit/?id=9f56f6a31762df8ae7f26e2481ea0032e1e90450 That's the merge commit. As for the one useless commit: I think that without it, we have 10 useless commits (the components making the feature), while with it, we have only 1 commit per "change" with the ability to look at more basic components of the commit. This makes review easier, and everything clear. As I mentioned above, if you use "git log --first-only", you won't even see the commits involved in the feature. -- Tom. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ October Webinars: Code for Performance Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance. Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60134791&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
